Analyses of God beliefs, atheism, religion, faith, miracles, evidence for religious claims, evil and God, arguments for and against God, atheism, agnosticism, the role of religion in society, and related issues.

Sunday, February 24, 2008

According the soul-building defense against the problem of evil, God has an interest in presenting us with a challenging world that rigidly conforms to natural laws.If the world bends to protect us from the consequences of our bad decisions, then we will learn nothing, we will not develop morally, we won’t grown in knowledge and power.Those that would argue that suffering is evidence against the existence of God have a mistaken assumption that a good and loving God would want to put us into a hedonistic paradise where no one would ever endure any pain.If God put us in that world, there would be no challenges, and no opportunities to develop moral virtue.But a world that has natural disasters, disease, violence, pestilence, war, and strife provides opportunities for us to acquire generosity, love, compassion, and moral responsibility.

There are a number of interesting objections to this view, but here’s what I take to be a devastating problem.What the soul-building theodicist is saying is that we are supposed to develop moral virtue in a world where the paragon of moral virtue, God himself, responds to widespread, horrific, and pointless suffering by refusing to do anything about it at all.So in effect, we are supposed to develop our capacities to take responsibility for suffering and prevent it wherever possible while we acknowledging that the most loving and morally virtuous thing that can be done for those that suffer is to ignore their plight completely.That’s what God, in his infinite moral wisdom, has seen fit to do, after all.So I must either deliberately defy God’s own wisdom and his example and try to develop some behaviors that he lacks, or I must emulate his example and leave sentient beings to endure whatever befalls them.Clearly, neither answer makes any sense.And no one is going to develop moral virtue either way.

One response that we might anticipate is someone who offers this sort of justification for God:“It’s the morally appropriate and loving thing for God to leave us in the challenging soul-building arena, but that doesn’t justify us in being complacent nor does it absolve us of our moral responsibilities to help those in need.”But this double-speak didn’t work when your father said “Do as I say, not as I do” and it doesn’t here either.God, or God’s representatives, cannot legitimately claim that it is both the pinnacle of love and care for humanity to neglect them when they face horrible suffering and claim that it is morally virtuous and loving to reach out wherever possible and to help them in their needs.On their view, God, the ultimate example of moral virtue, does nothing to alleviate or prevent pointless suffering in the world.

As with many cases we’ve seen, believing in God actually creates more of an impediment to being moral with these sorts of conflicting messages, rationalized conundrums, and double-standard justifications.Once again, it would appear that only the nonbeliever can acknowledge and pursue real moral virtue.

11 comments:

If suffering provides opportunities for us to acquire generosity, love, compassion, and moral responsibility, and we alieviate that suffering, are we not depriving those we help of the opportunities to acquire generosity, love, compassion, and moral responsibility.

Ishtar is Astarre translated from cultist forms into Astaroth in Enlgish and is VERY VERY VERY not dead.

Astaroth seats with Satan himself.

I couldn't figure out your wierd list after I saw Istar.

Aside from where you're wrong on that point "natural law" does not protect good nor evil and this force remains neutral. Evil is a problem and ignorance, selfishiness, belligerance, repression and common misunderstandings all result from BLOGS like this INCREASING common misunderstandings.

Huh. I can see the paradox you have setup yet unfortunately it suffers from what most atheistic arguments (at least in relation to the problem of evil) suffer from; primarily a greater or lesser degree of ignorance in relation to the nature of God. This is to be expected though and I mean nothing negative by the word ignorant. The problem of this paradox arises from thinking that outside of complete prevention there is nothing that God does to alleviate suffering? It seems atheists are so apt to take the all or nothing approach when trying to understand evil; either God should take it all away or he is just a heartless bastard. There is a key distinction to be made however between prevention and alleviation. If a parent fails to prevent the death of their child’s pet, does that mean they do not care? Should the child disbelieve in their parents love because they did not prevent such tragedy? I would think not. The parents will likely show love and kindness to the child; doing their best to explain that sometimes unfortunate accidents happen that are outside of our control. Does all the consolation, love, and understanding that is shown after a tragedy amount to nothing simply because the tragedy has taken place? That would be an interesting argument I have yet seen to be made. It is here however, in our attempts to “alleviate” suffering, that we follow God‘s example. God does not sit idly by and watch his children struggle under the weight of a progressive existence; always is he trying to lessen the burden of life. There is allowance of suffering; never indifference. Of course this begs the question: why the allowance? Indeed, the parent does not allow the death of their child‘s pet, they simply try to help them cope with it. The soul building argument has a lot to say here. It is hard to ignore that sometimes in our darkest moments we find our greatest opportunities for courage and triumph. It is hard to ignore that sometimes we do not resolutely determine to fight evil until we have met it face to face. It is hard to ignore that sometimes you have to trip and fall before you learn to walk. Just as we will fault a parent for being overprotective, would we not also fault a God is so paranoid for our safety that he controls every aspect of our lives so that we will never come into harms way? The soul building argument is of course not the only reason for the allowance of evil and there are numerous issues in need of addressing. I shall not however engage beyond the scope of this specific issue. Hence, there is no “paradox of soul building” unless you succumb to thinking that the only sign of love is complete prevention of all misfortune in your life. Just as we try and soften the unfortunate occurrences that befall our friends and family, God vigilantly works to provide solace during our moments of sorrow. We bestow compassion and wisdom as compassion and wisdom are bestowed upon us.

Let's try to think outside the dogma box here, Theist. It's not that I'm ignorant that these sorts of things get said about suffering, it's that I find it all utterly implausible.

The parent metaphor has swept people up to the point that they can't see how disanalogous it is with the sort of divine being God is alleged to be.

You said, "If a parent fails to prevent the death of their child’s pet, does that mean they do not care?"

Sure this makes perfect sense for a parent who is not all powerful, not all knowing, and who can't do anything to prevent the pet's dying. But I thought we were talking about the ultimate ground of all reality, the creator of the universe, the master of all things. Are you suggesting that he does care about our suffering but just can't do anything about it? Then the obvious point is that a being like that must not be powerful enough to do anything about it.

You said, "The parents will likely show love and kindness to the child; doing their best to explain that sometimes unfortunate accidents happen that are outside of our control."

Yep, parents who aren't the creators of the universe, who don't have infinite power and knowledge will admit that there are things outside of their control. So you're conceding that suffering is outside of God's control? He is alleged to have set the whole thing up afterall. He took a state of affairs where there was no suffering, nothing to be comforted about, and then set it all up so that all of this suffering would unfold. And you want us to swallow this idea that it's happening is perfectly consistent with his being the infinite, Almighty, the source of everything? Really?

You said, "Does all the consolation, love, and understanding that is shown after a tragedy amount to nothing simply because the tragedy has taken place?"

I think one of the reasons that lots of people feel comfortable saying stuff like this is that they haven't really appreciated what we're talking about. The Christmas tsunami in Thailand killed about 240,000 people. Countless others had their homes destroyed, families ruined, livelihoods lost. Tens of thousands of children were made orphans. And that's just one of a long list of examples.

You're saying that God's love and consolation is all that is needed for all of those people? I guess I can't really say they amount to nothing because I can't even tell what that means. Exactly what is the difference in appearance between a world where those disasters happen and God loves and consoles the victims and a world where there's no God? The world we are in looks exactly like you'd expect it to look if there wasn't one. It would appear that no matter what happens, God gets credit for loving and consoling. Are there any possible events that could occur where you would concede it doesn't look like God cares? See my previous post on: The Double Standard of God's Goodness. and also: Everything Is To The Glory of God.MM

I am sorry my friend. I never meant to say you were ignorant to the positions only to their understanding.

With regards to your opinion on the disanalogous nature of the parent-child metaphor I think you are incorrect. The point of an analogy is to compare things that are similar, not identical. If identical character was the requirement for an analogy than it seems we would have a “paradox of analogy”: A is like B and exactly the same. Besides, similar analogies are drawn all the time. Does not evolutionary biology draw analogies between the social behavior of primates and humans? Should I deny this as having no bearing because although I share traits with primates I obviously have ones that far exceed them as well? Is the fact that I have the ability to consciously give reason to my actions, to self reflect, to plan into the future, negate any and all analogous comparison? We seem to “choose” where as primates tend to have an “evolutionary prerogative.” Creationists might be apt to use this as proof that we are obviously not related to primates. I wonder, would you let them of the hook? So yes, parents are forced to react to a situation where as God chooses to allow it. This does not mean however that he does not react at all. I use the parent-child reference because it is the strongest example of God’s relationship with us. We tend to our children in need as God tends to his.

In your response you did not even touch this issue however. Not once did you did defend your paradox. In order for your paradox to work you would have to prove that every single person who claims to receive guidance, assistance, love, etc. from God was wrong. This is impossible though as even you must admit the “idea” of God (I assume this is all you allow) helps people in need. The alleviation is real, even if you entertain the notion that the source is false. Therefore God, fact or fiction, is very much active in uplifting his children. Your paradox rests on an absolute (all neglect on one hand and total attentiveness on the other) and therefore falls under its own assertion. There is no such thing as “total” neglect when it comes to God, believer or not.

I do however understand where you’re coming from. It seems you have more of a problem with how the “allowance” of evil can exist side by side with caring, not so much that this caring is felt or perceived. In this regard your article should have focused on the issues with soul building, not the paradox of such. I’m not sure why you insinuated that I intended to say God “cannot” prevent suffering as I think I made it quite clear it is allowed, not inevitable.

Nonetheless, in relation to these “issues” it seems you have missed a very important theistic concept that is in need of addressing. I will therefore try and explain this in regard to the soul building position. Hopefully this will provide a better understanding of the argument while at the same time it might help you better grasp the parent metaphor and my reasons for choosing it.

Your problem with my metaphor rests on the fact that parents cannot do anything to prevent tragedy in their child’s lives. For the sake of argument then let us imagine a parent who “can” prevent such tragedies. Let us give this parent all the abilities of an omnipotent, omniscient God who is all that is good. For good measure let us stick them in the existential category of the infinite as well; no beginning no end. Now I imagine we can without too much quibble agree that this parent would want their child to live forever (who wants their child to die) and would therefore grant the child eternal life. Remember, our parent is all powerful. This is a necessary corollary of the soul building argument. You cannot understand the allowance of suffering if you only look at it from its immediate context.

Now, with the gift of infinite life being given, is it still heartless to let the child be raised in a world where they have to face the vicissitudes of life? That is, is it cruel to let a child grow up in a world where they encounter opportunities to learn by trial and tribulation, being they need not fear ultimate death? Our omni-parent has given the greatest gift of all: the ability to live forever. In this context the suffering of life is temporary and transient; never is it permanent.

With this in mind, do you think our omni-parents would prefer an existence in which their children must “build” strength of character, courage, willpower, etc. or one where they have no need for such things? Would they want a world in which their children have an opportunity to “choose” the good over the bad or one in which there is no such opportunity by virtue of their being nothing negative? I think most parents would opt for the former of these examples. Basically, I think parents want their children to be virtuous by way of decision, not by way of default.

God is no different here than our omni-parents. He has created a universe full of uncertainty for us to grow up in while simultaneously protecting us from any real harm.

Thus, the soul building argument does have its merits. It seems there is more honor in being able to overcome obstacles rather than having none at all. Bill Gates started in a basement and rose to the top. Paris Hilton was given a blank check from the get go. Let me ask you MM. Who do you think turned out to be a better person?

I personally don't have enough faith to be an atheist. There is far too much evidence to the contrary. People choose not to believe for their own reasons and they will have to deal with that issue when they die... I just hope they spend enough time to study ALL the available arguments on both sides. It will speak for itself.

Theist,You postulate a dicotomy between humans and primates. That is false. The correct one is humans and other primates. Chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan) are more closely relate to humans than they are to any other living animal species, excluding themselves. There is more genetic closeness (kinship)between chimpanzees and humans than there is between chimpanzees and gorillas. Humans, chimpanzees and bonobos are more closely linked to gorillas than gorillas are related to orangutans.These five species (bonobos, chimpanzees, humans, gorillas and orangutans) are called great apes and are more related to each other than to the rest of animals. Gibons are the lesser apes. Gibons are more related to the great apes than to the monkeys. Apes(including humans) plus old world monkeys are catarhines. New world monkeys are platirhines. Catarhines (including humans) plus platirhines are simians. Simians (including humans) plus prosimians (lemurs) are primates.Primates (including humans), horses, lions, rats and whales are euteria (lit. good beasts). Euteria (including men and women) plus kangaroos and platypus are mammals. Mammals(including humans) along with birds, lizards and frogs are tetrapoda and along with sardines, sharks and lampreys are vertebrates and with corals, sponges and worms they are also animals. So humans are apes, simians, primates, mammals, vertebrates and animals and with bacteria, archea and plants they are living beings. So, Theist, get out of the center of the universe because the universe has no center at all, maybe there infinite universes. Astronomers had discovered hundreds of planets outside our solar system. That and many other discoveries point to the existence of other living planets around many stars. So, as time goes by, humans are losing the last pretensions of being at a central point in the so called "creation".Another thing: infinity is not the same as eternity. Infinity has a beginning but has no end, eternity has neither beginning nor end.Your theist paradigm appear to be cristian, i.e: only one short life in the incommensurable eternity. But the life of each being is different in its dose of suffering. Some people have a happy life, other have a horrible one. Why if only one life is granted the "given" doses of pain are different. Are not we all equal under "God"? The budhist and brahmanic paradigms appear to be more efficient with more opportunities to equalize the "given" suffering in the long run after zillions of lifetimes granted to each being. By the other hand, maybe there is not enough suffering in the universe and we have to make human sacrifices to appease the aztec pantheon (Quetzalcoatl and his gang), especially after a lull of 500 years without blood being spill over the pyramids and hearts taken with obsidian knives.

My book is out:

Search This Blog

Atheism

Author:

Ph.D. in philosophy from the University of Rochester. Teaching at CSUS since 1996. My main area of research and publication now is atheism and philosophy of religion. I am also interested in philosophy of mind, epistemology, and rational decision theory/critical thinking.

Quotes:

"Science. It works, bitches."

"The God of the Old Testament is arguably the most unpleasant character in all fiction: jealous and proud of it; a petty, unjust, unforgiving control-freak; a vindictive, bloodthirsty ethnic cleanser; a misogynistic, homophobic, racist, infanticidal, genocidal, filicidal, pestilential, megalomaniacal, sadomasochistic, capriciously malevolent bully." - Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion

"Religion easily has the greatest bullshit story ever told. Think about it. Religion has actually convinced people that there's an invisible man living in the sky who watches everything you do, every minute of every day. And the invisible man has a special list of ten things he does not want you to do. And if you do any of these ten things he has a special place, full of fire and smoke and burning and torture and anguish where he will send you to live and suffer and burn and choke and scream and cry for ever and ever until the end of time. But he loves you! He loves you and he needs money!"George Carlin 1937 - 2008

Many Paths, No God.

I don't go to church, I AM a church, for fuck's sake. I'm MINISTRY. --Al Jourgensen

Every sect, as far as reason will help them, make use of it gladly; and where it fails them, they cry out, “It is a matter of faith, and above reason.”- John Locke, An Essay Concerning Human Understanding

If life evolved, then there isn't anything left for God to do.

The universe is not fine-tuned for humanity. Humanity is fine-tuned to the universe. Victor Stenger

Skeptical theists choose to ride the trolley car of skepticism concerning the goods that God would know so as to undercut the evidential argument from evil. But once on that trolley car it may not be easy to prevent that skepticism from also undercutting any reasons they may suppose they have for thinking that God will provide them and the worshipful faithful with life everlasting in his presence. William Rowe

Unless you're one of those Easter-bunny vitalists who believes that personality results from some unquantifiable divine spark, there's really no alternative to the mechanistic view of human nature. Peter Watts

The essence of humanity's spiritual dilemma is that we evolved genetically to accept one truth and discovered another. E.O. Wilson

Creating humans who could understand the contrast between good and evil without subjecting them to eons of horrible suffering would be an utterly inconsequential matter for an omnipotent being. MM

The second commandment is "Thou shall not construct any graven images." Is this really the pinnacle of what we can achieve morally? The second most important moral principle for all the generations of humanity? It would be so easy to improve upon the 10 Commandments. How about "Try not to deep fry all of your food"? Sam Harris

Religion comes from the period of human prehistory where nobody--not even the mighty Democritus who concluded that all matter was made from atoms--had the smallest idea what was going on. It comes from the bawling and fearful infancy of our species, and is a babyish attempt to meet our inescapable demand for knowledge (as well as comfort, reassurance, and other infantile needs). Today the least educated of my children knows much more about the natural order than any of the founders of religion, and one would think--though the connection is not a fully demonstrable one--that this is why they seem so uninterested in sending fellow humans to hell.Christopher Hitchens, God is Not Great

We believe with certainty that an ethical life can be lived without religion. And we know for a fact that the corollary holds true--that religion has caused innumerable people not just to conduct themselves no better than others, but to award themselves permission to behave in ways that would make a brothel-keeper or an ethnic cleanser raise an eyebrow. Christopher Hitchens, God Is Not Great

If atheism is a religion, then not playing chess is a hobby.

"Imagine a world in which generations of human beings come to believe that certain films were made by God or that specific software was coded by him. Imagine a future in which millions of our descendants murder each other over rival interpretations of Star Wars or Windows 98. Could anything--anything--be more ridiculous? And yet, this would be no more ridiculous than the world we are living in." Sam Harris, The End of Faith, 36.

"Only a tiny fraction of corpsesfossilize, and we are lucky to have as many intermediate fossils as we do. We could easily have had no fossils at all, and still the evidence for evolution from other sources, such as molecular genetics and geographical distribution, would be overwhelmingly strong. On the other hand, evolution makes the strong prediction that if a single fossil turned up in the wrong geological stratum, the theory would be blown out of the water." Richard Dawkins, The God Delusion, p. 127.

One cannot take, "believing in X gives me hope, makes me moral, or gives me comfort," to be a reason for believing X. It might make me moral if I believe that I will be shot the moment I do something immoral, but that doesn't make it possible for me to believe it, or to take its effects on me as reasons for thinking it is true. Matt McCormick

Add this blog to your Google Page

Top Ten Myths about Belief in God

1. Myth: Without God, life has no meaning.

There are 1.2 billion Chinese who have no predominant religion, and 1 billion people in India who are predominantly Hindu. And 65% of Japan's 127 million people claim to be non-believers. It is laughable to suggest that none of these billions of people are leading meaningful lives.

2. Myth: Prayer works.

Numerous studies have now shown that remote, blind, inter-cessionary prayer has no effect whatsoever of the health or well-being of subject's health, psychological states, or longevity. Furthermore, we have no evidence to support the view that people who wish fervently in their heads for things that they want get those things at any higher rate than people who do not.

3. Myth: Atheists are less decent, less moral, and overall worse people than believers.

There are hundreds of millions of non-believers on the planet living normal, decent, moral lives. They love their children, care about others, obey laws, and try to keep from doing harm to others just like everyone else. In fact, in predominately non-believing countries such as in northern Europe, measures of societal health such as life expectancy at birth, adult literacy, per capita income, education, homicide, suicide, gender equality, and political coercion are better than they are in believing societies.

4. Myth: Belief in God is compatible with the descriptions, explanations and products of science.

In the past, every supernatural or paranormal explanation of phenomena that humans believed turned out to be mistaken; science has always found a physical explanation that revealed that the supernatural view was a myth. Modern organisms evolved from lower life forms, they weren't created 6,000 years ago in the finished state. Fever is not caused by demon possession. Bad weather is not the wrath of angry gods. Miracle claims have turned out to be mistakes, frauds, or deceptions. So we have every reason to conclude that science will continue to undermine the superstitious worldview of religion.

5. Myth: We have immortal souls that survive the death of the body.

We have mountains of evidence that makes it clear that our consciousness, our beliefs, our desires, our thoughts all depend upon the proper functioning of our brains our nervous systems to exist. So when the brain dies, all of these things that we identify with the soul also cease to exist. Despite the fact that billions of people have lived and died on this planet, we do not have a single credible case of someone's soul, or consciousness, or personality continuing to exist despite the demise of their bodies. Allegations of spirit chandlers, psychics, ghost stories, and communications with the dead have all turned out to be frauds, deceptions, mistakes, and lies.

6. Myth: If there is no God, everything is permitted. Only belief in God makes people moral.

Consider the billions of people in China, India, and Japan above. If this claim was true, none of them would be decent moral people. So Ghandi, the Buddha, and Confucius, to name only a few were not moral people on this view, not to mention these other famous atheists: Abraham Lincoln, Albert Einstein, Aldous Huxley, Charles Darwin, Benjamin Franklin, Carl Sagan, Bertrand Russell, Elizabeth Cady-Stanton, John Stuart Mill, Galileo, George Bernard Shaw, Gloria Steinam, James Madison, John Adams, and so on.

7. Myth: Believing in God is never a root cause of significant evil.

The counter examples of cases where it was someone's belief in God that was the direct justification for their perpetrated horrendous evils on humankind are too numerous to mention.

8. Myth: The existence of God would explain the origins of the universe and humanity.

All of the questions that allegedly plague non-God attempts to explain our origins--why are we here, where are we going, what is the point of it all, why is the universe here--still apply to the faux explanation of God. The suggestion that God created everything does not make it any clearer to us where it all came from, how he created it, why he created it, where it isall going. In fact, it raises even more difficult mysteries: how did God, operating outside the confines of space, time, and natural law "create" or "build" a universe that has physical laws? We have no precedent and maybe no hope of answering or understanding such a possibility. What does it mean to say that some disembodied, spiritual being who knows everything and has all power, "loves" us, or has thoughts, or goals, or plans? How could such a being have any sort of personal relationship with beings like us?

9. Myth: Even if it isn't true, there's no harm in my believing in God anyway.

People's religious views inform their voting, how they raise their children, what they think is moral and immoral, what laws and legislation they pass, who they are friends and enemies with, what companies they invest in, where they donate to charities, who they approve and disapprove of, who they are willing to kill or tolerate, what crimes they are willing to commit, and which wars they are willing to fight. How could any reasonable person think that religious beliefs are insignificant.

10: Myth: There is a God.

Common Criticisms of Atheism (and Why They’re Mistaken)

1. You can’t prove atheism.You can never prove a negative, so atheism requires as much faith as religion.

Atheists are frequently accosted with this accusation, suggesting that in order for non-belief to be reasonable, it must be founded on deductively certain grounds. Many atheists within the deductive atheology tradition have presented just those sorts of arguments, but those arguments are often ignored. But more importantly, the critic has invoked a standard of justification that almost none of our beliefs meet. If we demand that beliefs are not justified unless we have deductive proof, then all of us will have to throw out the vast majority of things we currently believe—oxygen exists, the Earth orbits the Sun, viruses cause disease, the 2008 summer Olympics were in China, and so on. The believer has invoked one set of abnormally stringent standards for the atheist while helping himself to countless beliefs of his own that cannot satisfy those standards. Deductive certainty is not required to draw a reasonable conclusion that a claim is true.

As for requiring faith, is the objection that no matter what, all positions require faith?Would that imply that one is free to just adopt any view they like?Religiousness and non-belief are on the same footing?(they aren’t).If so, then the believer can hardly criticize the non-believer for not believing. Is the objection that one should never believe anything on the basis of faith?Faith is a bad thing?That would be a surprising position for the believer to take, and, ironically, the atheist is in complete agreement.

2. The evidence shows that we should believe.

If in fact there is sufficient evidence to indicate that God exists, then a reasonable person should believe it. Surprisingly, very few people pursue this line as a criticism of atheism. But recently, modern versions of the design and cosmological arguments have been presented by believers that require serious consideration. Many atheists cite a range of reasons why they do not believe that these arguments are successful. If an atheist has reflected carefully on the best evidence presented for God’s existence and finds that evidence insufficient, then it’s implausible to fault them for irrationality, epistemic irresponsibility, or for being obviously mistaken.Given that atheists are so widely criticized, and that religious belief is so common and encouraged uncritically, the chances are good that any given atheist has reflected more carefully about the evidence.

3. You should have faith.

Appeals to faith also should not be construed as having prescriptive force the way appeals to evidence or arguments do. The general view is that when a person grasps that an argument is sound, that imposes an epistemic obligation of sorts on her to accept the conclusion. One person’s faith that God exists does not have this sort of inter-subjective implication. Failing to believe what is clearly supported by the evidence is ordinarily irrational. Failure to have faith that some claim is true is not similarly culpable. At the very least, having faith, where that means believing despite a lack of evidence or despite contrary evidence is highly suspect. Having faith is the questionable practice, not failing to have it.

4. Atheism is bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing.

These accusations have been dealt with countless times. But let’s suppose that they are correct. Would they be reasons to reject the truth of atheism? They might be unpleasant affects, but having negative emotions about a claim doesn’t provide us with any evidence that it is false. Imagine upon hearing news about the Americans dropping atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki someone steadfastly refused to believe it because it was bleak, nihilistic, amoral, dehumanizing, or depressing. Suppose we refused to believe that there is an AIDS epidemic that is killing hundreds of thousands of people in Africa on the same grounds.

5.Atheism is bad for you.Some studies in recent years have suggested that people who regularly attend church, pray, and participate in religious activities are happier, live longer, have better health, and less depression.

First, these results and the methodologies that produced them have been thoroughly criticized by experts in the field.Second, it would be foolish to conclude that even if these claims about quality of life were true, that somehow shows that there is theism is correct and atheism is mistaken.What would follow, perhaps, is that participating in social events like those in religious practices are good for you, nothing more.There are a number of obvious natural explanations.Third, it is difficult to know the direction of the causal arrow in these cases.Does being religious result in these positive effects, or are people who are happier, healthier, and not depressed more inclined to participate in religions for some other reasons?Fourth, in a number of studies atheistic societies like those in northern Europe scored higher on a wide range of society health measures than religious societies.

Given that atheists make up a tiny proportion of the world’s population, and that religious governments and ideals have held sway globally for thousands of years, believers will certainly lose in a contest over “who has done more harm,” or “which ideology has caused more human suffering.”It has not been atheism because atheists have been widely persecuted, tortured, and killed for centuries nearly to the point of extinction.

Sam Harris has argued that the problem with these regimes has been that they became too much like religions.“Such regimes are dogmatic to the core and generally give rise to personality cults that are indistinguishable from cults of religious hero worship. Auschwitz, the gulag, and the killing fields were not examples of what happens when human beings reject religious dogma; they are examples of political, racial and nationalistic dogma run amok. There is no society in human history that ever suffered because its people became too reasonable.”

7.Atheists are harsh, intolerant, and hateful of religion.

Sam Harris has advocated something he calls “conversational intolerance.”For too long, a confusion about religious tolerance has led people to look the other way and say nothing while people with dangerous religious agendas have undermined science, the public good, and the progress of the human race.There is no doubt that people are entitled to read what they choose, write and speak freely, and pursue the religions of their choice.But that entitlement does not guarantee that the rest of us must remain silent or not verbally criticize or object to their ideas and their practices, especially when they affect all of us.Religious beliefs have a direct affect on who a person votes for, what wars they fight, who they elect to the school board, what laws they pass, who they drop bombs on, what research they fund (and don’t), which social programs they fund (and don’t), and a long list of other vital, public matters.Atheists are under no obligation to remain silent about those beliefs and practices that urgently need to be brought into the light and reasonably evaluated.

Real respect for humanity will not be found by indulging your neighbor’s foolishness, or overlooking dangerous mistakes.Real respect is found in disagreement.The most important thing we can do for each other is disagree vigorously and thoughtfully so that we can all get closer to the truth.

8.Science is as much a religious ideology as religion is.

At their cores, religions and science have a profound difference.The essence of religion is sustaining belief in the face of doubts, obeying authority, and conforming to a fixed set of doctrines.By contrast, the most important discovery that humans have ever made is the scientific method.The essence of that method is diametrically opposed to religious ideals:actively seek out disconfirming evidence.The cardinal virtues of the scientific approach are to doubt, analyze, critique, be skeptical, and always be prepared to draw a different conclusion if the evidence demands it.